Search: TDS | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

25 results for “TDS”+ Section 272A(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Pune325 Delhi221 Mumbai125 Chennai88 Bangalore71 Visakhapatnam56 Karnataka26 Nagpur25 Kolkata23 Ahmedabad20 Lucknow18 Panaji15 Indore12 Cochin12 Surat11 Raipur10 Hyderabad9 Agra8 Varanasi6 Chandigarh6 Jaipur4 Rajkot4 Patna3 Jodhpur2 Cuttack2 Allahabad1 Jabalpur1 Guwahati1 SC1 Amritsar1 Kerala1

Key Topics

Section 200A112 Section 234E100 TDS25 Section 15416 Section 200A(1)16 Rectification u/s 15416 Section 271H8 Section 115W6 Section 272A(2)(k)5 Section 143

M/S ATASHA ASHIRWAD BUILDERS,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T (TDS) RANGE 1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 480/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur03 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 194CSection 200(3)Section 206C(3)Section 272A(2)(k)

TDS statement was not filed in time, then penalty under section 272A(2)(k) of the Act has been held

DIGP GROUP CENTRE CRPF,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC(TDS) , GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

4

ITA 294/NAG/2022[2015-2016, Qtr-3]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur18 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.294 & 295/Nag/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Digp Group Centre Crpf, Vs. Dcit, Cpc (Tds), D/O The Office Of The Digp Ghaziabad. Group Centre, Hingna Road, Digdoh Hills, Midc Area, Nagpur- 440019. Pan : Aaagd0143E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.294/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

DIGP GC CRPF,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CPC (TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 295/NAG/2022[2015-2016 Qtr-4]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur18 Jul 2023

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.294 & 295/Nag/2022 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Digp Group Centre Crpf, Vs. Dcit, Cpc (Tds), D/O The Office Of The Digp Ghaziabad. Group Centre, Hingna Road, Digdoh Hills, Midc Area, Nagpur- 440019. Pan : Aaagd0143E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue By : Smt. Rashmi Mathur Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 15.12.2021 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.294/Nag/2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Smt. Rashmi Mathur

Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 234ESection 271HSection 271H(1)(a)Section 272ASection 272A(2)

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

BANK OF INDIA ,PRASHEONI BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC,TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 111/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

BANK OF INDIA,SIHORA BRANCH vs. ACIT,CPC(TDS), GHAZIABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 104/NAG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,WARDHA ROAD, NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF,GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 91/NAG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

Section 115VSection 115WSection 143Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 200ASection 206CSection 246ASection 250

TDS, Ward-51(1), Nagpur. The said intimation is scanned and reproduced here as under : 2.3 Thus, it is seen that assessee has filed an appeal against the recovery of outstanding demand. The list of orders against ITA Nos.92 & 91/NAG/2023 (02 appeals) Gorakshan Sabha [A] which an appeal can be filed before the ld.CIT(A) mentioned in 246A is reproduced

GORAKSHAN SABHA, NAGPUR,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC), MOF, GOI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.92 & 91/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Gorakshan Sabha, The Income Tax Officer, Near Hitawada Press, V Ward Exemption, Nagpur. Wardha Road, Dhantoli, S Nagpur – 440012. Pan: Aaatg2927L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe - Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Act, Emanating From The Common Intimation Of Outstanding Demand Order For A.Y.2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. Since Facts Of Both Appeals Are Similar, We Take Up Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 As

Section 115VSection 115WSection 143Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 200ASection 206CSection 246ASection 250

TDS, Ward-51(1), Nagpur. The said intimation is scanned and reproduced here as under : 2.3 Thus, it is seen that assessee has filed an appeal against the recovery of outstanding demand. The list of orders against ITA Nos.92 & 91/NAG/2023 (02 appeals) Gorakshan Sabha [A] which an appeal can be filed before the ld.CIT(A) mentioned in 246A is reproduced

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 237/NAG/2019[2013-14 Q-2]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 239/NAG/2019[2013-14 Quarter4]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 240/NAG/2019[2014-15 Quarter -3]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 241/NAG/2019[2014-15 Quarter-4]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 242/NAG/2019[2015-16 Quarter-2]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 243/NAG/2019[2015-16 Quarter -3]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

ANIL LADHARAM HASSIJA,GONDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS WARD 2 (4) , BHANDARA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 37/NAG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

P.N.DEWALKAR CONSTRUCTION ,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 238/NAG/2019[2013-14 Quarter3 ]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(2), AKOLA , AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 404/NAG/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(2) , AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 405/NAG/2017[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 1(2) , AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 406/NAG/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PANCHAYAT SAMITI,MURTIZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD -1(2), AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 25/NAG/2018[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned

BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER PANCHAYAT SAMITI MURTIZAPUR ,MURTIZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD -1(2), AKOLA

Appeals are allowed

ITA 26/NAG/2018[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 Oct 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Takkar – (

Section 154Section 200ASection 200A(1)Section 234E

272A(2), it can be said that a particular set up for imposition and the payment of fee under Section 234E was provided but, it did not provide for making of demand of such fee under Section 200A payable under Section 234E. Hence, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned